From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>, Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/10] mm,memory_hotplug: Implement numa node notifier
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:30:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aE_WG6bnjtLBzCp8@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2bec8b53-f788-493e-a76e-1f804ed3aa0c@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:10:21AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.06.25 11:21, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > +The first argument of the callback function (self) is a pointer to the block
> > +of the notifier chain that points to the callback function itself.
> > +The second argument (action) is one of the event types described above.
> > +The third argument (arg) passes a pointer of struct node_notify::
> > +
> > + struct node_notify {
> > + int nid;
> > + }
> > +
> > +- nid is the node we are adding or removing memory to.
> > +
> > + If nid >= 0, callback should create/discard structures for the
> > + node if necessary.
>
> Likely that should be removed?
Yes, indeed.
>
> It' probably worth mentioning that one might get notified about
> NODE_CANCEL_ADDING_FIRST_MEMORY even though never notified for
> NODE_ADDING_FIRST_MEMORY. (same for removing)
>
> I recall this can happen if one of the NODE_ADDING_FIRST_MEMORY notifiers
> fails.
>
> (same applies to MEM_CANCEL_*)
>
> Consequently, we might simplify the cancel_mem_notifier_on_err etc stuff,
> simply unconditionally calling the cancel counterparts.
So, I managed to do another respin with all feedback included, but I
left this one for the end, and here I'm.
It's true, currently users can get notified about e.g: MEM_CANCE_ONLINE without
going through MEM_GOING_ONLINE if another user fails for the latter, but I'm
trying to workaround the fact why that's not a problem.
Because assume you have a user of MEM_CANCEL_ONLINE, who thinks it got called
for MEM_GOING_ONLINE, while in fact it didn't because some other user fail on
it, and it tries to free some memory it thinks it initialized during MEM_GOING_ONLINE.
Isn't this a bit shaky? I mean, yes, I guess we can put the burden on the users of
the notifiers to not assume anything, but then yes, I think we should document this
as it can lead to potential misbeliefs.
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-16 8:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-09 9:21 [PATCH v6 00/10] " Oscar Salvador
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 01/10] mm,slub: Do not special case N_NORMAL nodes for slab_nodes Oscar Salvador
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 02/10] mm,memory_hotplug: Remove status_change_nid_normal and update documentation Oscar Salvador
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 03/10] mm,memory_hotplug: Implement numa node notifier Oscar Salvador
2025-06-10 8:10 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-16 8:30 ` Oscar Salvador [this message]
2025-06-16 8:39 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-16 8:50 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-16 8:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-16 11:45 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-16 12:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-16 12:32 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-16 12:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-16 12:55 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 04/10] mm,slub: Use node-notifier instead of memory-notifier Oscar Salvador
2025-06-10 7:50 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 05/10] mm,memory-tiers: " Oscar Salvador
2025-06-10 7:51 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 06/10] drivers,cxl: " Oscar Salvador
2025-06-10 7:51 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 07/10] drivers,hmat: " Oscar Salvador
2025-06-10 7:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 08/10] kernel,cpuset: " Oscar Salvador
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 09/10] mm,mempolicy: " Oscar Salvador
2025-06-10 7:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-09 9:21 ` [PATCH v6 10/10] mm,memory_hotplug: Drop status_change_nid parameter from memory_notify Oscar Salvador
2025-06-10 7:55 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-10 8:02 ` Oscar Salvador
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aE_WG6bnjtLBzCp8@localhost.localdomain \
--to=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
--cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox